Fromm points out a psychological problem, but is that problem clearly stated? It goes to show that when things start to go bad that is when one would start to live by others expectations. To become to find yourself to be superior to our friends and family. When we are once born we do not give a care in the world as to what people think, but we do care about two opinions the most. Our parents. As children we try to please our mothers and fathers the most because we want them to be proud of us. We keep growing up to when we are adults and our mothers and fathers could be grandparents now and we still want to make sure that they are proud of what we have become. We want to make sure that they believe that they have raised a good child to be on our own in the world, to bring down the traditions, stories, and even some mistakes to each generation to the next. We internalize what society expects of us. When we become lazy, we become unauthentic, but in general this is just bad for us as humans. We hear things down the line like telephone. From the third or fourth person, or even social media (probably Facebook because that is the way to get in contact with most family members and friends). We are always public too as items are mass produced. We can never have something that is a ‘one-of-a-kind’ because there is someone who has already made it or done it before you. We say we are unique, but are we truly a unique one-of-a-kind?
Also known as the book of what god has created on the earth. With starting off with the basics, Day and Night. Day was named for the light because it seemed like it was good according to god. Night was named after the dark. It goes on about how water was to be divided up and where land was to be met. He came up about heaven and almost every object that is placed under his realm of heaven. That is when the first man and woman came about. Adam and Eve.
Now Adam was born first before Eve was, but when they were both born they had nothing to wear and were fine with that. There was even a garden too. This garden is known as the garden of Eden. A garden that had a sacred tree, the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This sacred tree also had forbidden fruit growing on it, with a sly serpent too. Well this serpent eventually convinces Eve that it is a grand idea to eat the forbidden fruit, with a soothing tone that she will not get hurt. Although god wished that no one would eat the forbidden fruit from the sacred tree, Eve does and she even shares with Adam. God was so mad that he punished Eve with painful childbirth and must submit to her husband’s (Adam) authority, while Adam was cured to toil and work the ground for food, also known as farming. Both Adam and Eve were banned from the garden of Eden. Eve eventually gives birth to two boys, Cain and Abel. God was more curious about Abel then his brother so out of jealously an enraged Cain murdered his brother only to be exiled by god from his home.
Adam and Eve, a grand story from god’s point of view.
With Locke comes a state of nature with morality. But as morality s defined as beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior, people end up coming to a conclusion about god. God is good, god is great, god is the man who we should all follow. Not all of this is true.
Coming from the perspective of an atheist, god is just made up. A person to whom some people want others to follow. In some cases it can be an object, animal, or even person. But overall it is still something that people believe that everyone should follow their “enforcer” of their religion. This making people believe what is good and what is not. Or even what could be wrong too. I believe in evidence. One of the main questions is how did man form? People who believe in god say, obviously, god. But others say that animals evolved and they eventually evolved into humans.
However, with god in the picture, as crazy as it could seem, there is some harmony that is brought up to the community. People follow god not only to have someone to look up to (literally), but someone who could enhance the law for the people who believe in him.
“Everyone has a right to do something, that all are equal,” written by Locke himself on page two in the Two Treatises of Government. Locke is stating that as free men, we all a natural right to prove that we are equal when a human does something.
In the discussion of the state of nature Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau all had a different way of saying what they thought it was. Locke brought up how it involved morality which then lead to god and harmony. While Hobbes believed that every man was for themselves and everyone had a natural right in society and there is no god involved. On the other hand, Rousseau’s position held self preservation and pity, a way humans share with animals. There is always a way in which one is willed to follow a state of nature if it involves Locke, Hobbes, or Rousseau.
I came from a small high school in Illinois with 500 kids total. So I knew that a small college was best. With driving to and from Indiana every other weekend to be with my father, we would drive past Indiana University-Northwest and it would always be our topic of conversation. I just knew I had to apply.
Because I am someone who is a total introvert at the beginning and when you get to know me I can be a complete extrovert. I did not know anyone from around IUN so I was very nervous about school and getting to know people. But thank god for playing a sport. I had received a scholarship for volleyball and it just kept getting better, or so I thought.
But because of volleyball, I was able to get to know almost everyone instantly due to the girls on the team. I think I knew almost everyone on the boys basketball team by the first week of school, cross country by the second week.
I feel like just being here already has been intellectual for me, but it was only seven weeks. Personally, I believe that my high school years and now college years could end up becoming somewhat the same in a way. Meaning some days can be filled with extra boredom while others can be filled with excitement.
The course load is different however. Only having four classes with a day or more in between each one instead of a normal five to six (depending on if you want to include gym) every day for five days a week is a lot to handle. I have never took part in block scheduling before so it was hard to get used to at first when classes stated. Then having papers due the next time having class while having practice, or games, then more work added onto that because of another class is overflow for me. Managing your time has to take some sort of skill. I thought I was good at it at first, but in the first seven weeks of college I have proven myself wrong. I went from an A/B student to a B/C student; that just is not me.
From high school I went from days of going to sleep at 11:30 the latest to college with going to sleep at 1 A.M. the latest now. I has been a huge transition. Getting all of the pressure of making sure that work is done, or that you even have some sort of sleep because you need to stay awake during class. All I got to say is that you do not really know how good you had it in high school until you get to college. It can be good most of the time to being the absolute worst.
As a whole we come to notice what ticks people off. We notice the things that make us who we are exactly on the inside. Sometimes we are just completely different on the inside from what we think we actually are on the outside.
People change depending on the environment they are thrown into. Say a class that they are good at. That person should be good, right? Excel in the class and continue on to getting a degree and a fantastic well paying job. They are lead to a good life ahead of them.
How about a game, for example a volleyball game. Some claims they did not touch the ball as much as they normally do. They freak out. Threaten to quit the team. Leaving it all behind them, the love of the game, the memories, and the team. Just one mistake can lead someone to what they thought they could never be.
As the world keeps spinning around we tend to notice these small ideals about ourselves and others. The good and the bad. But somehow we end up not paying as much attention to the buttons that each individual has that either make us tick or not. We pay attention to what everyone has to offer to us and use it to our own advantage to get a further start in our life. That is the real deal that we all know to actually be a secret, yet it is not though. We all use people. Yep, you read it correctly. We use people to our own advantage and most of us are to gullible to even notice.
We all have this little thing called competition that drives us nuts when someone beats us in our own game. You though you had it and was better than everyone but that one person found your button and pushed. But we are to be known as friends and on the very deep inside you two are actually enemies.
This is the excerpt for your very first post.
Isaiah Berlin. A man who wrote about freedom and the two concepts behind it, negative and positive. He briefly described in the beginning what the two freedoms mean in a general sense. Then broke it off into greater detail. It may seen like it could be something amazing to be reading about for some and others, well, not so much. Once I started to read it, it did not make much sense to me. In other words, I was extremely confused. I often found myself drifting away from the words, going into other conversations instead of actually focusing on what I needed to be reading.
Berlin points out “it is argued, that if a man is too poor to afford something on which there is no legal ban – a loaf of bread, a journey round the world, recourse to the law courts – he is as little free to have it as he would be if it were forbidden him by Law.” Understanding that if a man was too poor to afford something that he wishes that had no law holding it back, he is then as little to being free (as everyone claims in America) then as it would be something that had a law for it.But thinking of it another way. If a man was not poor and he could afford the thing he wished for, would it still be pointed towards negative freedom according to what Berlin is trying to direct the readers attention to?
For the positive side of freedom for Berlin it gives off a “sense of the word ‘liberty’… from the wish on the part of the individual to be his own master” according to what he states in his reading. With positive freedom it seems to make more sense; overall, one wants to be their own boss. However, we do not always get that luxury of it. We take abide from others having more experience in a work force and a point them to being called the boss.
To me, it can be confusing. Negative freedom is normally referred to with political freedom. While Positive freedom with referred to liberty. In my own words, it comes to knowing the difference between the two when given a word to remember it by.